On 06/25/2014 10:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:12:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:33:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2014 09:15 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>> irq work currently only supports local callbacks. However its code
>>>> is mostly ready to run remote callbacks and we have some potential user.
[...]
>> Right you are.. I think I'll just remove the BUG_ON(), Frederic?
>
> Something a little so like:
>
> ---
> Subject: irq_work: Remove BUG_ON in irq_work_run_list()
I think this should be irq_work_run(), see below...
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Jun 25 07:13:07 CEST 2014
>
> Because of a collision with 8d056c48e486 ("CPU hotplug, smp: flush any
> pending IPI callbacks before CPU offline"), which ends up calling
> hotplug_cfd()->flush_smp_call_function_queue()->run_irq_work(), which
s/run_irq_work/irq_work_run
> is not from IRQ context.
>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/irq_work.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -130,8 +130,6 @@ static void irq_work_run_list(struct lli
> struct irq_work *work;
> struct llist_node *llnode;
>
> - BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> -
I don't think irqs_disabled() is the problematic condition, since
hotplug_cfg() invokes irq_work_run() from CPU_DYING context (which has
irqs disabled). I guess you meant to remove the in_irq() check inside
irq_work_run() instead?
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> if (llist_empty(list))
> return;
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
